Events

Store

Month Archives: November 2015

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

November 24, 2015

So, Woodrow Wilson was a racist. This is indisputable. It’s also why many black students at the school for Wilson was once president, Princeton, are calling for a renewed assessment of his legacy there and as president of the United States.

“We don’t want Woodrow Wilson’s legacy to be erased,” said Wilglory Tanjong, a member of the protesting Black Justice League, told the New York Times. “But we think that you can definitely understand your history without idolizing or turning Wilson into some kind of god, which is essentially what they’ve done.”

In my view, that’s a good balance. We need not unduly lionize prominent people, especially people like Wilson whose moral narcissism, disdain for constitutional government, and ineptitude in foreign policy resulted in tragedy and political chaos. Yet we can’t scrub our history of all unsavory aspects of its past. Stalinized portrayals of history, in which people who for whatever reason have fallen out of favor are airbrushed-out of photographs and deleted from written accounts, are dishonest and chilling. Such an approach not only invites fascism and statist control, it embodies such.

Across the street from my building, a bust of the late eugenicist and Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger sits in honored glory in the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. Here is one choice giblet of insight from Mrs. Sanger for inclusion in the gravy of her secular adulation:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922, page 12

As historian Paul Kengor notes, “Was Sanger plotting to eliminate all blacks? Of course not. But she was plotting to control the reproduction of blacks and of the human race generally.”

And as my distinguished colleague Ken Blackwell writes, “Sanger sought to recruit Black pastors because she did not want the word to get out in our churches that she wanted to eliminate America’s Black population. Sanger constantly denied any such intent, but she argued incessantly for creating ‘a race of thoroughbreds.’ Not since the days of Slavery had such language been used, comparing human lives to horse breeding.”

Later in life, Sanger seems to have changed her tune, at least a wee bit. “The Negro race has reached a place in its history when every possible effort should be made to have every Negro child count as a valuable contribution to the future of America. Negro parents, like all parents, must create the next generation from strength, not from weakness; from health, not from despair,” she wrote in 1946.

Yet one must ask, who did Sanger think she was to determine which baby was or wasn’t a “valuable contribution” to America’s future? Her concerns about the health and well-being of black mothers and their children, expressed elsewhere in the 1946 piece quoted above (“Love or Babies: Must Negro Mothers Choose?”) were in themselves admirable, yet her solutions — widespread use of contraceptives to alleviate the suffering of black women and their babies and compulsory sterilization of “defectives” — hardly constitute a compassionate approach.

In many other writings, Sanger wrote of “human weeds” and advocated widespread forced sterilization. In sum, her belief in coercive population control and her apparent desire to “exterminate” the “Negro race” (note: she wrote this at the age of 43, not as an immature young woman) should animate her bust’s removal from the Smithsonian every bit as much as Wilson’s racism in belief and practice should temper Princeton’s reverential recognition of him as one of its greatest sons.

by
Jamie Dangers

November 24, 2015

There’s a lot of bad news these days. It can be hard to know how to process the global, national, and local tragedies that we hear with unsettling frequency. Headlines, tweets, and statuses are overrun with urgent cries of outrage, fear, and blind accusation. Truly, it can be crushing if we get caught under the weight of endless waves of tragedy and languish there.

What is the alternative? We could, I suppose, pretend everything is fine. We could steel our hearts and mind our own business.

But what good is there in that?

We can’t fix problems we don’t acknowledge. Pretending problems don’t exist will not make them go away. In fact, ignoring them will only allow them to persist.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who lived through times of evil and persecution we can only imagine, said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

I suggest when we read or hear or see bad news, we do so actively and intentionally. Use the hard things to remind us to pray, to inspire a discontent that leads to firm and compassionate action.

I would also ask you to read this article by David Altrogge, writer and producer of 3801 Lancaster: An American Tragedy. FRC was privileged to join Congressmen Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) in hosting in the U.S. Capitol a reception and screening of 3801 Lancaster, a profound documentary that shows what happens when people choose to do nothing in the face of evil. I would ask you to consider hosting a screening of the movie yourself, at your church, community center, or campus. Atrocities are being committed against unborn children and women across our country, in our own back yards, and we cannot afford to pretend this isn’t happening. It is a hard movie. But watch it with hope — when evil is exposed, it can be vanquished.

by
Daniel Hart

November 19, 2015

NOTE: Those who are grappling with a serious pornography addiction will most likely need help beyond the advice given here. Being part of a support group, having accountability partners and cultivating a robust prayer life anchored in God’s Word are all crucial to overcoming an addiction to pornography. Click here for more resources on combatting addiction.

National White Ribbon Against Pornography (WRAP) Week has come and gone, but the battle for hearts and minds must continue. Important, common-sense strategies in the fight against pornography consumption often seem overlooked in regard to addressing the porn epidemic in our society. Therefore, this post will focus on the simple reality that natural sexual desires and energy can be redirected, and that this is something that is healthy and necessary for human beings to flourish. If more people applied this practice in their daily lives, it would stem the demand for porn that is fueling its production and dissemination.

First, it’s important to remember that even in today’s hyper-sexualized culture, most people still think that watching porn is morally wrong. And yet, studies show that two-thirds of men and over one-third of women in the United States use porn on a monthly basis, and half of all Internet traffic is related to sex. Clearly, there is a disconnect between what people know in their hearts to be true, and what they actually do despite what their conscience tells them.

How does this happen? Justifying immoral behavior to oneself is easy, especially when our culture literally encourages it. In a society where contraception, premarital sex, and one-click-away Internet porn are the norm, satisfying sexual urges is seen as akin to eating or sleeping, as if it must be done in order to function normally. Implicit in this assumption is the belief that we are merely animals who must masturbate or copulate on impulse like baboons. The problem with this view is that it does not reflect the actual experience of those who attempt to placate these urges through porn consumption and masturbation—instead of feeling satisfied, the overwhelming feeling is one of guilt, disgust, and shame (even cursory searches of online discussion forums about pornography reveal this).

At the heart of this problem is the reality of sexual desire, which is something intrinsically good in nature, but is also uniquely powerful and instinctual, which means it is highly susceptible to being warped and abused. Here at FRC, we strongly believe in the inherent goodness of sex as expressed in the marital bonds of one man and one woman. Having said that, any honest discussion of sexual desire cannot stop there for the simple reason that every one of us, whether young or old, single or married, must deal with our natural desires and urges on a daily basis. Certain demographics, particularly teenagers (and men in general) experience keener surges in sexual energy. In a world of instant gratification where one can carry around the entire Internet in one’s pocket, is it any wonder why the web is saturated with pornography? Technology has put society in an unprecedented position: Even the slightest sexual urge can be indulged instantly, with one or two typed words and a couple of clicks in Google—without the trouble of having any real human interaction.

This is why it is so critical to deal with this problem at its root: What is one to do with the energy that is felt in a sexual urge or desire? As touched upon earlier, it must be made clear that there is a crucial difference between perceived sexual “needs” and the need for food or sleep. One can’t redirect their hunger or tiredness toward something else—these needs will only become worse until they are satisfied. This is simply not the case with a sexual urge. With effort, one’s sexual thoughts can be redirected toward something else, and the urge will often simply pass. The key to succeeding in this is through forming the habit of not extending a sexual thought into a prolonged fantasy, which a well-formed conscience will react to with shame. Once one recognizes the nature of the temptation at its onset, it can more easily be purified.

This is easier said than done, of course. When a stronger sexual energy does come, as it inevitably will from time to time, experience tells us that it can be redirected toward a creative activity such as playing music or dancing, or it could simply be a physical activity like going for a run, playing sports, building a bookshelf, working in your garden, landscaping, cleaning, etc. These activities combine our physical and creative capacities and provide a therapeutic outlet for our energy, whether it be sexual or otherwise.

The law of supply and demand makes it clear that as long as pornography is in demand, there will always be a supply. Through self-discipline and redirecting our sexual energy, the temptation to consume pornography can be avoided, and thus the possibility of an addiction can be stopped before it starts. This will in turn decrease the demand for porn, and eventually lead to a decrease in its production and dissemination. Some may say that this is an idealistic pipe dream, but if more people in the majority of those who believe that pornography is wrong stopped using it, the tide could begin to turn.

This mission can only be fulfilled if we not only commit to undertaking it ourselves, but also commit to instilling it in our children. Make no mistake, this is an extremely difficult battle to fight, because it must be fought not only with the prevailing culture, but also with ourselves. Nevertheless, it is a noble battle for the human heart, and therefore worth fighting for with all our might.

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

November 19, 2015

Having spent two full days at the annual gathering of the Evangelical Theological Society, I’ve heard myriad comments from lecturers and participants along the following lines concerning where Evangelicals find themselves in contemporary American society:

“We live in a post-Christian culture.”

“We live in an era of great promise.”

“We are a minority and should ask for protected status.” (Yes, in a seminar I attended, this was seriously proposed.)

“The decline of our culture is inevitable.”

“The reasons for hope are great.”

As my friend Matt Anderson, founding editor of Mere Orthodoxy, said to me earlier today, in one profound sense, what difference does it make?

Of course, understanding the times gives us a map by which we can better communicate with the current generation, what the critical issues facing our country are, and how Christians can then persuade our contemporaries that the Gospel offers present and eternal hope and how God’s standards for society afford great blessing to everyone in it.

With that said, endless pondering over our position in society has become a near-closet industry among the Evangelical intelligentsia. It is only natural that in the wake of the Supreme Court’s fiat dictum on same-sex marriage this past summer, the continuing horror of abortion, genuine and growing threats to the practice of religious liberty, and other concerns as diverse as sex trafficking and domestic terrorism, that trying to understand how we are perceived, where our opportunities lie, where the dangers lurk, and how we speak winsomely, wisely, truthfully, and convincingly to our increasingly diverse society is not just appropriate but necessary, even imperative.

Yet meticulous and repetitive analysis removes our focus from where it should be—Christ and His Good News—and fosters a surfeit of gloom in some and a general sense of ennui in many. We are in a race for the glory of God (Hebrews 12:1-2). That race will not be won by continuous chin-pulling or hand-wringing but by discipline, speed, and agility harnessed in pursuit of a longed-for goal. For Christians, that goal is “the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14), a calling which includes reaching the lost, protecting the weak, and upholding human dignity.

So, by all means, let’s continue healthy reflection on the cultural canvas before us. But let us not become so immobilized that we don’t work to infuse it with the colors of life and joy offered by the living Savior. The “welfare of the city” (Jeremiah 29:7) and the souls of men require no less.

by
Natasha Tax

November 17, 2015

Since the 1990’s, The annual World Congress of Families has been bringing together thousands of people who come from all over the world, practice a diversity of religions, and speak a multitude of languages. Despite their differences, each participant has one important belief in common: the natural family is essential to society. These world congresses, which could be described as the Olympics of the family, have for decades been uniting scholars, activists, statesmen, and religious leaders to discuss critical issues relevant to the family. The most recent World Congress of Families, held in late October, was significantly more vibrant and aspirational than those held previously.

The reason for this optimistic change is the addition of 250 Emerging Youth Leaders in the Pro-Family Movement. Several years ago, the planning committee for the 9th World Congress of Families decided that they wanted to engage young people who are passionate about pro-family values, so they established a scholarship program for young people to compete for the opportunity to attend the congress. The Emerging Leaders selected to participate come from 40 countries, and are all working in their respective communities to encourage respect for marriage, life, and the family.

From testifying at the UN, to running their town’s pro-life organization, to beginning conservative activism on their college campuses, to counteracting the media’s liberal bias (among other notable endeavors), these scholars are doing work from small towns to national governments to support the family. At this year’s congress, many of these young people—who often feel as though they are alone in their values—were humbled and encouraged to meet other activists like themselves from around the world.

The World Congress of Families only lasted a week, but it was a watershed event for the Emerging Leaders, who are just beginning their careers. The contacts they made and experts they engaged with left a lasting impression which further motivated them to stand for the family. Throughout the week, each scholar worked on a project initiating an organization, website, or campaign that encourages the family. Within the next few weeks, the best project will receive funding and support from World Congress leaders so that the creator’s dream can come to fruition. Many believe the false notion that young people have abandoned conservative family values, but the passionate and vocal Emerging Youth Leaders who gathered in Salt Lake City, Utah this past month are a strong indication that the future of the pro-family movement is in good hands.

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

November 12, 2015

This week at the National Press Club here in Washington, D.C., Baylor University’s Institute for Religion Studies held a fascinating seminar titled, “The End of Religion? An Essential Correction to the Secularization Myth.”

As Baylor professor J. Gordon Melton observed, “Are ‘nones’ to be equated with irreligious? That’s not the case. We have a large segment of the ‘nones’ who are atheists and irreligious, but we have a large segment that fall into (the) spiritual but not religious category. … The largest group are ones who say Christianity is not a religion.”

People long for the vitality of a rigorous faith, not simply some undemanding, self-created religion-of-choice. As William Voegli, writing in the Claremont Review of Books, says, “If and when people who turned to moralistic therapeutic deism for spiritual nourishment come to regard that creed as a starvation diet, they are likely to seek out, or return to, more fortifying alternatives. In that sense, the serious problem of replenishing moral and religious capital may prove to be self-correcting.”

Christianity is the one true “fortifying alternative.” It’s the only one that endures and fulfills, since it is grounded in the historic Person Jesus of Nazareth, Who claimed to be God in the flesh and the only way to the Father. That’s good news, especially since His claim possesses the advantage of being true.

Sincerely,Rob SchwarzwalderSenior Vice-PresidentFamily Research Council

P.S. Many of the results of last week’s election were encouraging to conservatives. As FRC President Tony Perkins’ “Washington Watch” newsletter reported on Nov. 4, “If social issues are dead, you could have fooled U.S. voters … the enormous impact of issues like marriage and religious liberty” echoed throughout the nation. That’s why Molly Ball asserts in The Atlantic that “Liberals Are Losing the Culture Wars.” One thing is certain: Social conservatives are here to stay. Regardless of next year’s election outcomes, we’re going to keep both defending and advancing faith, family, and freedom in the public square.

The Government Nondiscrimination Act is focused on preventing government discrimination at the state level. Like the First Amendment Defense Act at the federal level, states need to pass legislation now to protect individuals and entities from state discrimination on the basis of their beliefs in natural marriage.

As Millennials become more prominent in the workforce, companies are spending small fortunes researching their interests, from specific jobs to new products. Social science studies reveal that the Millennial generation is drifting away from traditional family values towards acceptance of all views as equally valuable. Even so, the strong sense of justice that most Millennials possess provides a glimmer of hope.

The purpose of the “Inequality Act” is to give special privileges to people based on homosexual behavior or based on gender identity dysphoria by adding “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into a number of federal laws. These changes affect “any” provider of goods, services, and programs. This is sweeping legislation that does not provide any protections based on religion, even stripping individuals of a Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (“RFRA”) claim.

by
Joshua Denton

November 11, 2015

A simple “thanks” seems so insufficient today.

Today is the designated day where we show our appreciation for the men and women in uniform who have sacrificed in order to preserve freedom and protect our Union. It is most appropriate that these brave individuals are honored, and that we create a special holiday for them.

One day is insufficient to truly appreciate all that they have put on the line so that we can enjoy freedom and live in tranquility.

Some gave years. Years apart from their homes. Apart from their fiancé, or spouse. Apart from their families and children. Missing them. Wondering. Worrying.

Some lost limbs. Never again to travel around with the same abilities and mobility.

Some lost their best buddies. Some turned around and had a best friend fall lifeless into their arms.

Some lost memories of the past. Cherished moments forgotten, relatives and friends now unknown to them.

Some gave all. They paid the ultimate sacrifice. A life. For your freedom. For your happiness.

Freedom is a thing to be cherished.

To the brave men and women, past and present, who are members of the Armed Forces of the United States of America, we salute you.

Not just today, in this month of November, on Veterans Day. We appreciate you every day. We think of you often.

by
Rob Schwarzwalder

November 6, 2015

This could be the beginning of a bad joke: What do a Palestinian sheikh, the Supreme Court, and an abortion center in Indiana have in common?

The answer: Life and death.

The Palestinian sheikh, Muhammad Salakh, is one of many Palestinian leaders urging Muslims in Gaza and the West Bank to slaughter Israelis. “Restrain the victim while others attack him with axes and butcher knives,” he said to his followers recently “as he brandished a knife in a sermon that was widely viewed within the territories. ‘Do not fear what will be said about you. Oh men of the West Bank, next time, attack in a group of three, four, or five. Attack them in groups. Cut them into body parts.’”

The “knife of jihad” has, thus far, led to “a dozen dead and at least 19 seriously wounded in 59 separate stabbing attacks, mainly in Jerusalem. Some 72 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli security forces, including 45 who Israel said were involved in attacks and another 27 Palestinians killed in clashes between stone-throwers and security forces.”

Next, the Supreme Court: The Justices have agreed to “hear another challenge to the Affordable Care Act, this time to decide whether religiously affiliated organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities should be free from playing any role in providing employees with contraceptive coverage.”

“The court accepted seven cases from around the country, including one challenge involving the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington and the other from an order called the Little Sisters of the Poor, which runs homes for the aged,” reports the Washington Post.

The Post story excerpts an important comment by U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Wollman who, writing for a unanimous panel, “that the issue is whether the groups ‘have a sincere religious belief that their participation in the accommodation process makes them morally and spiritually complicit in providing abortifacient coverage. Their affirmative answer to that question is not for us to dispute.’”

Note the word “abortifacient.” This is not just about contraception, but about an Obamacare mandate that requires those with deeply held, faith-based objections to abortion to facilitate it. Abortion is a matter of life and death, and participation in it in any way would be heinous to millions of Christians in this country. It is wise the Supreme Court takes it seriously.

Finally, in South Bend, Indiana, that city’s last abortion center is shutting its doors—possibly permanently—tonight.

According to TV station WNDU, “Last June, the Indiana Department of Health moved to revoke the license of the Women’s Pavilion in South Bend citing numerous violations. Since then, the clinic has remained open as management appealed the license revocation. This week, the appeal was dropped on the day the clinic was scheduled to begin defending itself.”

Murder in Israel. Abortifacient drugs. The destruction of unborn life and the cruel abuse of their mothers.

All matters of life and death. All critically important. And all evidence that God-given human dignity matters wherever and however it is threatened.

The image of God we all bear is a thing of wonder. In the womb and outside it, all persons merit the protection of law and the respect of every culture. Christians must always bear in mind that their duty to safeguard life is a sacred one. Let’s never neglect it.

by
Mandi Ancalle

November 5, 2015

Remember Rachel Dolezal? She is the Caucasian from Montana who, identifying as a black woman, was a leader in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and a professor of Africana Studies at Eastern Washington University before her parents revealed her true identity and she lost both positions.

You might also be familiar with Jewel Shuping. She is a North Carolinian woman who identified as a blind woman and thus, convinced a psychologist to sprinkle drops of drain cleaner into Shuping’s eyes so she would go blind. When interviewed after going blind, Shuping said she believes she “should have been blind from birth.” The world of psychology calls this body integrity identity disorder.

Most folks look at Rachel Dolezal and Jewel Shupping and are, understandably, deeply troubled by their decisions. In fact, many believe it is wrong for a person to portray himself as someone or something he is not, and it is wrong for a person to harm himself. Most folks would recommend psychological counseling for Dolezal and Shupping, in hopes that they cope with issues pushing them to refuse to accept their biological make-up.

Why, then, does the world applaud Bruce Jenner for identifying as a woman?

Bruce Jenner is just as confused as Rachel Dolezal, the color of one’s skin and the sex of an individual both being immutable characteristics. However, Dolezal and Jenner have been treated differently. While the world has rejected Dolezal and her claims, it has embraced Bruce Jenner. And, though Shupping’s identity disorder is different from that of Jenner, both are mutilating and manipulating their bodies in pursuit of how they identify and view themselves; but, this self-view is obviously not objective.

That said, skin color and sex are objectively determinable attributes, even before birth.

Walter Heyer is a spokesperson regarding transgender regret. He is a male who transitioned to a female and then stopped hormone treatments attempting to revert to his original gender. He now chronicles his story and the stories of those like him who have undergone surgeries and other medical interventions for gender identity dysphoria, only to realize that the reasons they struggle with their gender are not superficial—they are not healed by dealing only with the body. People with gender identity dysphoria need counseling, not surgical mutilation.

Mr. Heyer has also chronicled some of the things he learned along his journey, including the lack of ability to completely physiologically change a person’s sex and the increased risk of suicide in those who attempt gender change. Thus, it is important for parents, schools, and government leaders to endeavor to help individuals work through the reasons for their gender identity dysphoria, and to move toward acceptance of their God-given, natural sex.

Last week, one government leader, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), spoke out about her acceptance of her daughter, who is attempting to become a male. While Ros-Lehtinen is certainly correct in that it is “a tragedy that a great proportion of young people who pass through this transition are rejected by their families,” there should be a distinction made between acceptance and affirmation. Families must learn to accept the individual struggling with his or her identity, without affirming his or her decision to base their identity on subjective views of self, for example, by identifying as a different race, blinding themselves in pursuit of a disability, or undergoing gender transition efforts.

People, especially young people, need support from those who are willing to speak truth into their lives, which includes truth about their natural, biological identities.

by
Chris Gacek

November 5, 2015

Last week, news came out of China that its “one-child” population control strategy was being “abandoned.” This is ABSOLUTELYNOTTRUE. The PRC has merely adopted a “two-child” policy. The entire institutional structure of coercion has been left in place, and the government will still require birth permits. Also, existing second children are not going to lose their non-person status.

That said, this relatively minor change is being forced on the central planners by the complete demographic cataclysm they have brought upon their own nation. See my colleague Rob Schwarzwalder’s excellent article in the Christian Post for background information.

The Communist Party is not going to relinquish coercive population control because this policy and its implementing apparatus lie at the core of the Chinese security state.

Lucy Hornby discussed a different aspect of the news in her article for the FT Weekend entitled “Bleak Future for China’s Hated Family Planners.” It appears that forcing people to abort their children with violence, threats of familial torture, and demands for bribes is not the Dale Carnegie way.

I think Hornby’s fascinating article probably overstates the gravity of the threat to the population control bureaucracy. That said, there are some great observations describing the way the Chinese people feel about these population thugs. She notes that there are “millions of hated government officials” working at this. They cause “heartbreak” to the population by “enforcing abortions and sterilizations, meting out crippling fines and punishments…” Their actions include “even removing infants from their families on behalf of the state.” (It’s probably more like killing them on behalf of the state.)

She observes, “Family planning workers are not required to have any medical education – and they are hated.” Apparently, “[i]n the 1980s, when the forced abortion campaign was at its peak, hostility ran so deep that family planning officials travelled by convoy into villages where they were sometimes greeted with a hail of stones….” In social media, one person wrote an excellent question: “Why do we hate the Japanese army but not the family planning officials?”

And, of course, the officials are incredibly corrupt. Bureaucrats have to grant permission to have even the first child. Villagers are “fined” arbitrarily for random infractions that can be leveraged for a bribe. In thirty-five years since 1980, the government has accumulated $315 billion (with a “b”) one analyst estimates. That is a massive amount of money given the poverty in China’s rural areas, and the money has never been audited.

The expert Hornby consulted believes the whole system will be terminated in three years. We shall see. I have my doubts. It is hard to imagine a bureaucracy this evil going softly into the night.

Clearly, the “two-child” policy makes no sense, and the legitimacy of the program has been shattered. An American administration that cared about human rights might be able to push it over, but that would not be this cold-hearted, inhumane administration. That will have to wait until 2017.